[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600 --- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-10-29 01:58:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Mock build fails. I've built the new version, which builds in rawhide mock for me. Re: CFLAGS combined with setup.py: Right. Diving into it I can see that many packages does it that way - but also many noarch packages. And many python arch packages doesn't do it. It seems to me like the Python packaging guidelines could use some clarification here? Yes, I completely agree. The guidelines could use some cleaning up and the spec templates should be updated to match. Re: commented out %check section: Doesn't that mean that we need a comment about why it is disabled? Yes, this is something I should have done, sorry. The age of the review is such that I don't remember anymore -- I'll figure this out when I build the new version. Re: this package installs 4 separate python modules That might be true, even though I assume they are separate modules because upstream considers them independent? I don't feel comfortable with a package reserving such a generic term as persistent from the global Python module namespace just for its internal use. Hm, good point. I will package them as separate sub-packages. New SRPM/SPEC: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-ZODB3.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-ZODB3-3.9.3-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529605] Review Request: ohai - Profiles your system and emits JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529605 --- Comment #5 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-10-29 02:43:42 EDT --- Still waiting on the license issue. Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/ohai.spec SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/ohai-0.3.6-1.fc12.src.rpm * Wed Oct 28 2009 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com - 0.3.6-1 - New upstream release. - Add dependencies on rubygem-mixlib-{cli,config,log} - man page included upstream -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529605] Review Request: ohai - Profiles your system and emits JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529605 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-10-29 03:14:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Still waiting on the license issue. Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/ohai.spec SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/ohai-0.3.6-1.fc12.src.rpm * Wed Oct 28 2009 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com - 0.3.6-1 - New upstream release. - Add dependencies on rubygem-mixlib-{cli,config,log} - man page included upstream Apologies, this update is broken. I'm going to have to rework things a little. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522169] Review Request: netplug - Daemon that responds to network cables being plugged in and out
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522169 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530688] Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530688 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 04:41:58 EDT --- Looks fine to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 528675] Review Request: knm-new-fixed-fonts - 12x12 JIS X 0208 Bitmap fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528675 Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #13 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 04:59:17 EDT --- Thanks. pushed the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #17 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 05:07:49 EDT --- cabal2spec-diff looks sane, should be ready for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531605] Review Request: packmol - Packing Optimization for Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531605 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-10-29 05:07:32 EDT --- A few notes: - You don't need to include AUTHORS and COPYING separately. Where did you get them, anyway? - I wouldn't use -ffast-math, since then the results aren't reproducible (they depend on the machine type). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-10-29 05:10:08 EDT --- - You are missing the Source URL. Fix it. - Replace gzip rho.1 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/ mv rho.1.gz $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/ with install -D -p -m 644 gzip.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/rho.1 (If you move the file, short circuiting the build won't work. Also, rpm handles compression of man files by itself, so you don't need to do it manually.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460974 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 05:15:16 EDT --- xmobar.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 21) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460974 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 05:17:05 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=366582) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=366582) xmobar.spec-1.patch You don't need doc/prof for a binary only package, plus other minor fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 05:37:25 EDT --- I haven't checked (yet) but is the License tag really GPL+? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503250] Review Request: ghc-hinotify - Haskell binding to INotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503250 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 05:35:25 EDT --- You forgot to update the srpm. ghc-hinotify.src: E: description-line-too-long This library provides a wrapper to the Linux Kernel's inotify feature, allowing applications to subscribe to notifications when a file is accessed or modified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491490] Review Request: ghmm - A library with data structures and algorithms for Hidden Markov Models
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491490 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 06:33:39 EDT --- ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491490] Review Request: ghmm - A library with data structures and algorithms for Hidden Markov Models
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491490 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 06:33:33 EDT --- ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502477] Review Request: arista - Easy to use multimedia transcoder for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502477 --- Comment #11 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 06:39:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) There's always a chance... if you do the review :). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525412] Review Request: mediaproxy - NAT traversal solution for compatible SIP-routers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525412 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 06:44:46 EDT --- Ver. 2.3.8: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/mediaproxy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/mediaproxy-2.3.8-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 519282] Review Request: calibre - e-book converter and library manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519282 --- Comment #26 from Ionuț Arțăriși maple...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 07:08:32 EDT --- Jose, I can't replicate the rpmlint errors you're getting. Here's a koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776159 $ rpmlint calibre-0.6.19-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm calibre.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/calibre/fonts/prs500/tt0419m_.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Regular.ttf calibre.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/calibre/fonts/prs500/tt0003m_.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationSans-Regular.ttf calibre.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/calibre/fonts/prs500/tt0011m_.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462923] Review Request: jibx - Framework for binding XML data to Java objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462923 Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|462580 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462580] Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462580 Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|462923 |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(guth...@counterex | |ample.org) | --- Comment #6 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 07:09:45 EDT --- Well, nothing happens. No response. I close this now. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526100] Review Request: django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526100 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 07:13:19 EDT --- Ping? -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509159] Review Request: PragmARC – a comp onent library for Ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509159 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 07:19:25 EDT --- Koji successful scratchbuild for F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776218 Sources, used to build package, are matching upstream ones: [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum pragmarc.zip* 6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9 pragmarc.zip 6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9 pragmarc.zip.1 [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent: [pe...@workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC- PragmARC-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm PragmARC-debuginfo-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm PragmARC-devel-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm [pe...@workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [pe...@workplace tmp]$ + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec . + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (GPL with exceptions) + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package (or subpackage) calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Development-related files are in a -devel package. + The library file that end in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package. [20] + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529831] Review Request: opensips - Open Source SIP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831 --- Comment #3 from John A. Khvatov iva...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 07:54:19 EDT --- 1.6.0-2 changelog: - Added patch for init script to fix malformed comment block - Added COPYING file - Fixed not-capitalized not-capitalized summory of memcached subpackage SPEC: http://dev.sgu.ru/fedora/opensips.spec SRMP: http://dev.sgu.ru/fedora/opensips-1.6.0-2.fc11.src.rpm Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530342] Review Request: kcm-gtk - Configure the appearance of GTK apps in KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530342 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 08:10:23 EDT --- kcm-gtk-0.5.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kcm-gtk-0.5.1-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529831] Review Request: opensips - Open Source SIP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 08:12:30 EDT --- Great. I don't see other issues, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cassmod...@fedoraproject.or ||g AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cassmod...@fedoraproject.or ||g Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525146] Review Request: PDCurses - Public Domain curses library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525146 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-10-29 08:20:06 EDT --- Since this conflicts with ncurses, I'm withdrawing this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529831] Review Request: opensips - Open Source SIP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #49 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 08:51:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #43) Failure of the submitter (Marc Wiriadisastra) to respond to a ping is sufficient reason for this to be closed. If you (Lubomir) are now submitting this package, you should have opened your own review ticket. Lubomir, this was the next ping, you are missing ;) Please, close this as a dublicate to your own review request. Without, this is a 'CANTFIX'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530756] Review Request: circuit_macros - A set of macros for drawing high-quality line diagram
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530756 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 09:12:04 EDT --- Just a comment: The *.m4 files are executable, possibly not by intention… -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|cassmod...@fedoraproject.or |cwick...@fedoraproject.org |g | --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 09:19:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) As the license is clearly stated in *every* source-file this shouldn't be an issue for the package. It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add the files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts and a short notice which files are under the BSD license. Two more minor comments: In the patch you should set MANDIR to ${PREFIX}/share/man instead of ${PREFIX}/man Use %{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.* instead of %{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.gz because compression of the manpages is a transparent process done by rpmbuild. We could also switch to bz2 or lzma as discussed on fedora-packaging-list recently. Marcus, some comments on your review: You should not only check that the source matches upstream by md5, but also the mdssum. In this case it's 716b12d9ea052f57d917bf2869d419df for both. MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A Should be OK instead of N/A. :) You could also have done a scratch build like http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776460 Apart of that, your review was good. Sven, the only remaining blocker is the license issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|479527 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479527] Review Request: synfigstudio - Vector-based 2D animation studio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479527 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Depends on|428567 | Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 --- Comment #50 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-10-29 09:27:50 EDT --- bug #531773 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531773] Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||479527 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479527] Review Request: synfigstudio - Vector-based 2D animation studio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479527 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) | Depends on||531773 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531773] New: Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773 Summary: Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/synfig.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/synfig-0.61.09-4.fc11.src.rpm Description: Synfig is a powerful, industrial-strength vector-based 2D animation software, designed from the ground-up for producing feature-film quality animation with fewer people and resources. It is designed to be capable of producing feature-film quality animation. It eliminates the need for tweening, preventing the need to hand-draw each frame. Synfig features spatial and temporal resolution independence (sharp and smoothat any resolution or framerate), high dynamic range images, and a flexible plugin system. This package contains the command-line-based rendering backend. Install synfigstudio package for GUI-based animation studio. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531773] Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@mwiriadi.id.au --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-10-29 09:32:04 EDT --- *** Bug 428568 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Resolution|CANTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #51 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-10-29 09:32:04 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 531773 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510511] Review Request: aws - Set of tools to access Amazon EC2, S3 and SQS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510511 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-10-29 09:32:45 EDT --- I am no longer interested in this package. If anyone wants to resurrect it feel free to. I'd gladly help if needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-10-29 09:32:37 EDT --- I am no longer interested in this package. If anyone wants to resurrect it feel free to. I'd gladly help if needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 Sven Lankes s...@lank.es changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Sven Lankes s...@lank.es 2009-10-29 09:52:48 EDT --- It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add the files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts and a short notice which files are under the BSD license. I cannot find any justification that this is mandatory and spot doesn't think so either: 14:45 killefiz spot: do I have to create a LICENSE-File for an RPM if upstream doesn't supply one (he doesn't want to add one either) 14:45 spot killefiz: no, it is not required. I'll upload a new spec addressing the two other issues you raised later today (unless you want me to upload as is and add fixes later). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 10:05:37 EDT --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. It is explicitly (and intentionally) not mandatory. I would encourage you to note in the spec file (in comments) the licensing situation and breakdown. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530617] Review Request: libixp - Stand-alone client/server 9P library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530617 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maple...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 10:14:49 EDT --- *** Bug 454025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454025] Review Request: libixp - stand-alone client/server 9P library including ixpc client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454025 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 10:14:49 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 530617 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531773] Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773 --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-10-29 10:26:25 EDT --- kouzi skrec bild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776478 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541 --- Comment #2 from Devan Goodwin dgood...@rm-rf.ca 2009-10-29 10:52:04 EDT --- alik...@redhat.com will be taking over this package, if possible (when package is added) it'd be great if he could be added as the owner. If not we'll just dole out the permissions ourselves. Fixes for the above coming soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 10:52:07 EDT --- I have to admit that I still disagree because this is a package with multiple licenses. The users will nether see the headers nor the spec, all they have is the info from rpm -qi. However if Spot says it's ok and you are not willing to add a README.licensing, I don't insist on this as a blocker. The package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 11:06:17 EDT --- BTW: Debian has a couple of interesting patches for tmux, see http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/tmux/1.0-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524107] Review Request: qbrew - A Brewing Recipe Calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524107 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 11:06:21 EDT --- qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ru...@rubenkerkhof.com --- Comment #6 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-10-29 11:09:49 EDT --- What's the status of this review? I don't see sgpio in F-11 yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 519282] Review Request: calibre - e-book converter and library manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519282 --- Comment #27 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2009-10-29 11:21:30 EDT --- I run mock locally: $ mock --rebuild -r fedora-devel-x86_64 calibre-0.6.19-3.fc11.src.rpm Probably this is related with different set of build tools used in the koji building system... If that is not a problem then proceed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472639] Review Request: Scilab - Numerical Analysis toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472639 --- Comment #30 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.le...@scilab.org 2009-10-29 11:33:26 EDT --- OK, thanks for the feedback. Is there anyway that Jogl Gluegen could be accepted under this form into the archive ? Building jogl gluegen from the same tarball is not enough ? Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522341] Review Rquest:kde4-windeco-aurora e
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522341 Ryan Rix phrkonale...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||phrkonale...@gmail.com Flag||needinfo?(vvfa...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #3 from Ryan Rix phrkonale...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 11:33:01 EDT --- Are you a sponsored packager? According to FAS you are not. Please set the 'Blocks' entry to FE-NEEDSPONSOR if so. A few suggestions for packager: 1) Make sure this builds in Koji (do you have the koji tools installed on your machine? koji build --scratch dist-f13 kde4-windeco-aurorae-0.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm ) Provide taskID of the entire build in your review request 2) rpmlint output of the SPEC, SRPM, RPM and -debuginfo RPM in review request. These things are not technically required, but they make things easier for your reviewer and in general expediate the package review process. If you are sponsored I will take this review, if not I cannot review it, only provide pre-review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530756] Review Request: circuit_macros - A set of macros for drawing high-quality line diagram
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530756 --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 11:40:59 EDT --- Fixed. Does install -p add executable permissions? Guess I should just use -m all the time and not trust what's in the tar/zip from now on anyways. Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/circuit_macros/circuit_macros.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/circuit_macros/circuit_macros-6.61-2.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529810] Review Request: perl-MooseX-CascadeClearing - Cascade clearer actions across attributes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529810 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #8 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 11:46:04 EDT --- Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524107] Review Request: qbrew - A Brewing Recipe Calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524107 Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #19 from Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 11:47:16 EDT --- Tag request submitted for F12. All appears to be well in the world. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231861] Review Request: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231861 --- Comment #11 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 11:49:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Is this package still ready for review? somehow :o) (And shouldn't it be a Merge Review?) definitely How can it be that it has status Assigned but isn't assigned to anybody? afaict, it seems it was assigned to someone whose account has been closed My first impression is that it looks like it haven't been dressed up for examn and could use some polishing before a final review. sure, I've inherited this package and it required a *lot* of polishing. But after a few rounds it got lower and lower in my todo-list, especially because there was no reviewer. Some brief comments: It seems like most (all?) of the code now is licensed announcement-BSD-ish, so the License and the comments about it are a bit misleading. fixed The spec is quite complex and verbose and IMHO not easy to read. I agree The spec contains comments left over from the Invoca version. fixed _perlhack variable seems to be unused since 7.3 - Red Hat, not Fedora! yes, this was leftover, I've removed all perlhack ifdefs some time ago removed There are manu variables and configuration options. Are they necessary and used? this is what I can't even guess actually. I'd definitely like to get rid of all those switches, but I don't want to break it for someone... Well, I've just though about removing them in new rawhide and wait if someone complains. and since devel is future rawhide now, I've removed them The %file specs are very explicit and verbose. Is that intentional and necessary? (And %{_contribdir} is listed twice.) second _contribdir removed it seems to me there is quite a lot of space for improvement since attributes do not need to be specified twice (install in %install and %files), I'll look at this. Rpmlint says 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 20 errors, 61 warnings. Some of the warnings might be invalid, but some of them definitely should be adressed before review. I've lowered the number a little for now The spec has 30 sources and 15 patches without any indication if they have been pushed upstream. Afaik they were rejected some sources are additional modules/tools that upstream is not interested in -- This is first round and definitely not finished. Just to show you there is someone on the other end. I'll continue with this on monday --- changes were only commited, not tagged yet, you find actual (not finished) spec in cvs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743 Sven Lankes s...@lank.es changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Sven Lankes s...@lank.es 2009-10-29 11:51:04 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tmux Short Description: A terminal multiplexer Owners: slankes Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 494695] Review Request: qutim - Multiplatform Instant Messenger on Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494695 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 11:56:57 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild for F-11 failed due to easy-to-fix issue in the %files section: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776709 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 12:06:44 EDT --- sgpio-1.2.0.10-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sgpio-1.2.0.10-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669 Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 12:07:56 EDT --- I'm sorry, I built it but forgot to push it as an update for F11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231861] Review Request: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231861 --- Comment #12 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com 2009-10-29 12:30:49 EDT --- The spec has 30 sources and 15 patches without any indication if they have been pushed upstream. Afaik they were rejected Probably. I worked a bit on packaging 10 (hmm ... scary!) years ago (http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/conectiva/atualizacoes/8/RPMS/cyrus-imapd-devel-static-2.0.17-1U80_1cl.i386.html), and back then upstream wasn't that open. But the license change might be an indication that things have changed now? some sources are additional modules/tools that upstream is not interested in That might be. But there are so many of them that it almost deserves a real home. Fedora CVS is not a good upstream. Perhaps upstream could be convinced to carry it in its contrib folder? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 --- Comment #1 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org 2009-10-29 12:38:03 EDT --- 1) Probably the sane thing to do would be to call it easy_install-3, right? That's what has been done with most of the other tools for Python 3, and it looks like python-setuptools-devel installs easy_install-2.6. It seems to me that it would be fine for the Python 3 version to only install under the versioned name. 2) I assume that when the brp-python-bytecompile patch is in, the __python def will go away, right? 3) The python_sitelib stuff looks a bit hackish, but there might not be any better way to do it. 4) I still think it's insane that easy_install is in the -devel subpackage. I know that this is a carryover from the python2 packaging, but I think it's worth reconsidering. If I recall correctly, the rationale was that easy_install depended on some files from python-devel, or something like that. Anyway, I think it's a disservice to users that the setuptools package doesn't include easy_install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #19 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-10-29 12:52:08 EDT --- GPL+ is the default if they just specify GPL. I can double check later today or if you want to do it, that works too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231861] Review Request: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231861 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-10-29 13:00:54 EDT --- I'm glad to see some progress with cyrus-imapd, or any merge review for that matter, but is anyone actually reviewing this? fedora-review is set to '?' but the ticket isn't assigned to anyone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486937] Review Request: rhnlib - Python libraries for the RHN project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486937 Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||atodo...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 12:59:50 EDT --- I'm seeing this package in EPEL which is newer than what I have from rhn.redhat.com. Can the two packages conflict or the newer package break things on a RHEL5 system ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 --- Comment #2 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 13:42:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for the feedback. 1) Probably the sane thing to do would be to call it easy_install-3, right? That's what has been done with most of the other tools for Python 3, and it looks like python-setuptools-devel installs easy_install-2.6. It seems to me that it would be fine for the Python 3 version to only install under the versioned name. It already installs a /usr/bin/easy_install-3.1 It's not clear to me if we need an easy_install-3; we could rename it to that, or drop it. 2) I assume that when the brp-python-bytecompile patch is in, the __python def will go away, right? I also used __python in order to override the standard python fragments for getting sitearch/sitelib for setup, build and install. One of my aims is to minimize the diff against the original specfile. 3) The python_sitelib stuff looks a bit hackish, but there might not be any better way to do it. What do you see as hackish about it? I'm trying to follow the changes proposed here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-October/msg00042.html to these: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python (which work around the print change from 2 to 3; again trying to keep the 2 and 3 versions in sync) 4) I still think it's insane that easy_install is in the -devel subpackage. I know that this is a carryover from the python2 packaging, but I think it's worth reconsidering. If I recall correctly, the rationale was that easy_install depended on some files from python-devel, or something like that. Anyway, I think it's a disservice to users that the setuptools package doesn't include easy_install. I want to stick as close as possible to the python 2 version of the package, so I'd suggest taking that up as a separate bug report against that package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529605] Review Request: ohai - Profiles your system and emits JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529605 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-10-29 13:51:04 EDT --- Asking for advice on this package at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-October/msg00091.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600 --- Comment #5 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com 2009-10-29 13:52:54 EDT --- Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following? python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775 python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything else.) Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others? There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file? Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226522] Merge Review: valgrind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226522 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 13:51:15 EDT --- I will review the F-12 branch. It looks like the F-12 branch is several commits ahead of the devel branch, so that needs to be sorted out. Here is the output of rpmlint on F-12: valgrind.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.5.0-6 ['1:3.5.0-6', '1:3.5.0-6'] valgrind.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided valgrind-callgrind valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_helgrind-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_helgrind-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/valgrind-listener valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/cachegrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/cachegrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/cachegrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-bbv-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-bbv-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-bbv-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/drd-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/drd-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/drd-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/lackey-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/lackey-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/lackey-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_massif-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_massif-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/valgrind valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_drd-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_drd-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/none-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/none-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/none-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/no_op_client_for_valgrind valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/cg_merge valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/massif-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/massif-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/massif-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_core-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_core-amd64-linux.so valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/callgrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/callgrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/valgrind/callgrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valgrind/helgrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/helgrind-amd64-linux valgrind.x86_64: E:
[Bug 531605] Review Request: packmol - Packing Optimization for Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531605 Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com --- Comment #2 from Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com 2009-10-29 14:21:47 EDT --- I agree with Jussi Lehtola regarding AUTHORS and COPYING. You should contact upstream about this, like I did http://code.google.com/p/django-app-plugins/issues/detail?id=13can=1#c2 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498218] Review Request: picturetile - Tiles a bunch of images into one large photo wall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498218 --- Comment #5 from Edwin ten Brink fed...@tenbrink-bekkers.nl 2009-10-29 14:28:07 EDT --- The add-in PictureTile version 0.6.0.1 for f-spot-0.6.1.2-3.fc11.i586 works with the package under review (picturetile-0.20050314-2). I incorporated the version-comment, so the version is now prefixed with 0. The package is otherwise unchanged. Uploaded files: Spec URL: http://fedora.tenbrink-bekkers.nl/picturetile/picturetile.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.tenbrink-bekkers.nl/picturetile/picturetile-0.20050314-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498218] Review Request: picturetile - Tiles a bunch of images into one large photo wall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498218 Bug 498218 depends on bug 498222, which changed state. Bug 498222 Summary: Crashed by using PictureTile plugin (create photowall) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498222 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 --- Comment #3 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org 2009-10-29 14:33:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Anyway, I think it's a disservice to users that the setuptools package doesn't include easy_install. I want to stick as close as possible to the python 2 version of the package, so I'd suggest taking that up as a separate bug report against that package. I actually did once, as bug #510659. The action to move easy_install from python-setuptools to python-setuptools-devel was made in response to bug #240707. I'll reopen my bug report and give some more detailed information, but that really doesn't have any bearing on the python3-setuptools package. The python3-setuptools-devel package has two files: 1) /usr/bin/easy_install-3: a 9 line script that imports and runs pkg_resources.load_entry_point 2) /usr/lib/python3.1/site-packages/easy_install.py: a 5 line script that loads and runs setuptools.command.easy_install.main The actual dependency on python3-devel happens in the setuptools libraries, not in these trivial scripts, so the python3-setuptools package is the one that should depend on python3-devel package. This is a simple matter of incorrect dependencies in the specfile, and the packaging guidelines make it pretty clear that python3-setuptools needs to depend on python3-devel (or the files it depends on need to move from python3-devel to python3). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 --- Comment #4 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org 2009-10-29 14:51:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) It already installs a /usr/bin/easy_install-3.1 It's not clear to me if we need an easy_install-3; we could rename it to that, or drop it. I think it would be good to have an easy_install-3, so that there's more continuity with upgrades from 3.1 to 3.2 to 3.3, etc., but that's just my opinion. I also used __python in order to override the standard python fragments for getting sitearch/sitelib for setup, build and install. One of my aims is to minimize the diff against the original specfile. I would think that the goal would be more to set the standard for Python 3 packaging, especially since there aren't any packaging guidelines yet. Not that I know what the right thing is. :) 3) The python_sitelib stuff looks a bit hackish, but there might not be any better way to do it. What do you see as hackish about it? I'm trying to follow the changes proposed here: Sorry, I was totally wrong on that. Thanks for the links. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 --- Comment #5 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org 2009-10-29 15:07:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) The actual dependency on python3-devel happens in the setuptools libraries, not in these trivial scripts, so the python3-setuptools package is the one that should depend on python3-devel package. This is a simple matter of incorrect dependencies in the specfile, and the packaging guidelines make it pretty clear that python3-setuptools needs to depend on python3-devel (or the files it depends on need to move from python3-devel to python3). Hmm. It turns out that the dependency is actually in distutils, which is part of the python3 package. I'll make a comment on this over on the python3 packaging page and open a separate bug report for python2. Once these are fixed, setuptools packaging can be made sane. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126 --- Comment #37 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org 2009-10-29 15:16:08 EDT --- The current specfile puts %{pylibdir}/config/* into the devel subpackage. However, distutils needs to load %{pylibdir}/config/Makefile (see the get_makefile_filename() function in distutils/sysconfig.py. Since distutils is and should be in the main python3 package, then %{pylibdir}/config/Makefile also needs to be in the main python3 package instead of the devel subpackage. Based on _init_posix() in distutils/sysconfig.py, it looks like this is also true for /usr/include/python2.6/pyconfig.h. The only alternative would be to put distutils into the python3-devel subpackage, but that doesn't seem right at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530275] Review Request: rubygem-erubis - A fast and extensible eRuby implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530275 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-10-29 15:14:11 EDT --- Well, * About %check: - I decided to add the fix for test_syntax2 on ruby. Now for F-13/12/11 the fixed ruby rpms are added into buildroot tree (i.e. koji scratch build should success now) ( and for F-12 the fixed ruby will be pushed on the next rawhide push ). So you can remove test_syntax2 hack. - The following may be smarter: export GEM_PATH=$(pwd)/%{gemdir} export PATH=$(pwd)/%{gemdir}/bin:$PATH pushd .%{geminstdir}/test find data/users-guide -type f -name \*.rb | \ xargs sed -i -e '/require.*erubis/i\require rubygems' mv data/users-guide/Example.ejava data/users-guide/example.ejava ruby -rrubygems test.rb By the way the line mv data/ should be moved to %build section because for this file the filename is definitely wrong and it is better that the installed file should also be renamed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541 Adrian Likins alik...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alik...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Adrian Likins alik...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 15:31:52 EDT --- new version of packages is at: spec: http://alikins.fedorapeople.org/files/rho/rho.spec src rpm: http://alikins.fedorapeople.org/files/rho/rho-0.0.10-1.fc11.src.rpm Includes fixes for comment #1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531912] New: Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wdier...@rackspace.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/perl-Net-ARP.spec SRPM URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/perl-Net-ARP-1.0.6-1.src.rpm Description: This module is a Perl extension to create and send ARP packets and lookup local or remote mac addresses. You do not need to install any additional libraries like Libnet to compile this extension. It uses kernel header files to create the packets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912 BJ Dierkes wdier...@rackspace.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||526311 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526311] Review Request: mysql-mmm - Multi-Master Replication Manager for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526311 BJ Dierkes wdier...@rackspace.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||531912 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477542] Review Request: mpdscribble - A mpd client which submits information about tracks being played to Last.fm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477542 Jaroslaw Gorny jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #26 from Jaroslaw Gorny jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com 2009-10-29 16:25:18 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mpdscribble Short Description: A mpd client which submits information about tracks being played to last.fm Owners: jaroslav Branches: F-11 InitialCC: peter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866 --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 17:00:30 EDT --- Hmm, I think you'll need a rebuild because rb_libtorrent-0.14.6 was also built for F-12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866 --- Comment #13 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-10-29 17:22:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) Hmm, I think you'll need a rebuild because rb_libtorrent-0.14.6 was also built for F-12. rb_libtorrent-0.14.6 isn't included in the F12 build system. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/i386/pkglist http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-f12-build-current/i386/pkglist -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866 --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 17:27:47 EDT --- It's in updates-testing for F12: $ koji list-tagged dist-f12 rb_libtorrent Build Tag Built by rb_libtorrent-0.14.4-3.fc12 dist-f12 tmraz $ koji list-tagged dist-f12-updates-candidate rb_libtorrent Build Tag Built by rb_libtorrent-0.14.6-1.fc12 dist-f12-updates-candidate pgordon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600 --- Comment #6 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-10-29 17:29:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following? python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775 python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have a better suggestion. Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything else.) I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we choose). My particular interest in Zope libraries is for SAGE (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE). Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others? There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file? Quite possibly. I must apologize for the sloppy work, I was rushed for time yesterday. Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead? This sounds reasonable. New Spec/SRPM: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-ZODB.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-ZODB-3.9.3-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530857] Review Request: drehatlas-xaporho-fonts - latin typeface inspired by a hobby rock band logo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530857 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530857] Review Request: drehatlas-xaporho-fonts - latin typeface inspired by a hobby rock band logo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530857 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@adsllc.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-10-29 17:30:34 EDT --- Review: 1. typo in the description: orginaly 2. I don't think we go as far as asking to convert .ttf to .otf when upstream chose .ttf. When upstream does both, we prefer .otf, but it's fine keeping .ttf if it's upstream's choice. I doubt that for this particular font this will change anything, ttf vs otf is mostly relevant for complex fonts (this is not a criticism, the package is fine as is, just an informational note) 3. repo-font-audit notes this font could easily be extended to cover more scripts with just a little effort (many scripts are less than ten glyphs away). I'll attach the report if you want to relay it upstream ܈܈܈ APPROVED ܈܈܈ You can now continue from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Please do not forget the wiki gardening. Thank you for another contribution to our font package pool. ⇒ REASSIGNING -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866 --- Comment #15 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-10-29 17:39:11 EDT --- It's not available @ koji so I can't build against it. (that's why I wanted the buildroot override ). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866 --- Comment #16 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-29 17:49:02 EDT --- Then go ahead and request it. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484386 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||or...@cora.nwra.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #20 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2009-10-29 17:56:45 EDT --- I'll take the review. First comments: Let's change all the %define statements to %global. I'm a little leery about the defaults if pkg-config emacs doesn't work. What's the motivation? Perhaps other conditionals would be more appropriate? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669 --- Comment #9 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-10-29 18:02:06 EDT --- Great, thanks! Don't forget to close this tickets when it's been pushed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866 --- Comment #17 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-10-29 18:11:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) Then go ahead and request it. :) Ticket filed. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2904 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530857] Review Request: drehatlas-xaporho-fonts - latin typeface inspired by a hobby rock band logo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530857 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-10-29 18:17:58 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=366726) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=366726) repo-font-audit report -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509159] Review Request: PragmARC – a comp onent library for Ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509159 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se 2009-10-29 19:29:15 EDT --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: PragmARC Short Description: PragmAda Reusable Components, a component library for Ada Owners: rombobeorn Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480279] Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496433] Tracker: packages from Russian Fedora Remix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496433 Bug 496433 depends on bug 525389, which changed state. Bug 525389 Summary: Review Request: madwimax - Driver for mobile WiMAX devices based on Samsung CMC-730 chip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525389 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Bug 496433 depends on bug 480279, which changed state. Bug 480279 Summary: Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600 --- Comment #7 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com 2009-10-29 20:49:31 EDT --- python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775 python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have a better suggestion. I guess that depends on what upstreams purpose with the files is? Are they installed on purpose or is it an oversight? FWIW I can't imagine any reasons why .c files should be included in any package. Theoretically it could perhaps make sense to expose the C code as a C library and put the .h files in a -devel package, but I don't think that is upstreams intention. Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything else.) I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we choose). It _could_ be done in the ZODB module simply by inserting the right path in sys.path before importing - or by manipulating sys.modules. But I don't know if I would propose doing it in a Fedora patch. I think we need input from upstream if they see it as one module or as 4 modules each on their own right. In either case it could be nice if they distributed it in a way which matched their intention. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review